Allowed

Shri Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Rayapeta Venkat Ram Prasad

Telangana HC27 Aug 2014CRP/2122/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition dismissing the lower court’s order that declined a Form 10 application because a written statement was filed and issues settled. The court set aside the impugned order and directed disposal on merits within two months, relying on legal principles that Order XV-A CPC does not prescribe a specific stage for filing such applications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; lower court directed to dispose of I.A.No.429 of 2013 on merits within two months after hearing both parties; CRPMP dismissed as infructuous.

Shri Dinesh Chandra Vs Sri Rayapeta Venkat Ram… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.No.2122 of 2014

¶3

Date : 27-8-2014

¶4

Between: Dinesh Chandra .. Petitioner And Rayapeta Venkat Ram Prasad .. Respondent

¶5

Counsel for petitioner : Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy Counsel for respondent : Sri K.R.K. Gargeya

¶6

The Court made the following :

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 1-4-2014 in I.A.No.429 of 2013 in O.S.No.490 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

I have heard Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R.K. Gargeya, learned Counsel for the respondent.

¶10

The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for eviction of the respondent and for recovery of rents. In the suit, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.429 of 2013 under Order XV-A CPC for a direction to the respondent to deposit the admitted rent, failing which his defence may be struck off. By the impugned order, the lower Court has dismissed the petition only on the ground that a written statement has already been filed and that issues have been settled.

¶11

In my opinion, the reasoning on which the lower Court has dismissed the application is contrary to the settled legal

¶12

principles. In Sangeetha Upadhyay Vs. Chitrangada^[1] , I had an occasion to deal with the provisions of Order XV-A CPC wherein I have inter alia held at para-5 of the said Judgment as under :

¶13

“ ….. Order XV-A does not prescribe any stage for filing an application. This provision is incorporated with a view to see that the plaintiff is not denied

¶14

payment of admitted liability as it is common knowledge that civil proceedings are dragged on for years on end. Therefore, in my opinion there is no legal requirement that an application under Order XVA CPC should be filed at the first hearing only.”

¶15

In the light of the above settled legal position, the order of the lower Court is set-aside. The lower Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.429 of 2013 on merits after hearing both the parties within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.2969 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶17

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶18

Date : 27-8-2014

¶19

¶20

[1] 2013(2) ALT 59

Shri Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Rayapeta Venkat Ram Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dinesh Chandra v. Sri Rayapeta Venkat Ram Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Ismail, Vs Sri K. Mahipal Reddy

M/s Leafin India Ltd., (In Liqn) Vs -

Sri Rajendra Kotwal Vs M/s Monarch Finlease Ltd., (in Liquidation)

M/s.Laran Sponge and Minerals PVt.Limited. (In Liqn.) Vs Indian Bank

Mohd. Yousuf, Vs Mohd. Babu Mia

Mohd Abdul Sattar Vs Mohd Sadatulla